Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Author Topic: Colonies: Which would be more profitable?  (Read 5358 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Colonies: Which would be more profitable?
« on: February 01, 2022, 05:58:48 AM »

With the player as admin...

* Two colonies with Commerce with +25% (or +50% income with colony improvement)?  (Assume any Dealmakers found go to the three colonies run by hired admins, not those run by player.)
- or -
* Three colonies (and taking a -2 stability penalty from mismanagement on those three).

I am mulling over no Commerce (and a different industry instead), and if want more income, build another colony instead.  I get up to three slots plus Military Base per planet on three planets at only -2 stability, instead of two slots plus Base plus Commerce per planet on two planets at -3 stability.

As for story points, if I already use two improvements to patch stability loss and/or production boosts for Mining, it would be cheaper for three colonies.  ((2+4)*3) = 18, while ((2+4+8)*2) = 28.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Colonies: Which would be more profitable?
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2022, 10:37:38 AM »

I'm pretty sure it's better to have a third colony in most cases. You can just put your admins/dealmakers/military bases on worlds that don't have good 3rd/4th industry options (barren with fuel + refining), and then personally manage the worlds with lots of good industries (usually habitable worlds). I think it will depend a bit on colony items though (assuming you are spamming those). A world with two really good itemized industries might be a lot better off with commerce than a third non-itemized industry.

If you have lots of similarly good industry options: assume for a moment that every industry makes the same profit (define it as '1' income).
2 worlds with 3 industries and SP commerce: 2*((1+1+1)*1.5) = 9 income
3 worlds with 4 industries: 3*(1+1+1+1) = 12 income

Of course you probably won't have 4 equally good industries on three worlds, but even if you have only 3 good industries on 3 worlds, that's already as good as two worlds with three good industries and commerce with SP, so it seems very likely to me that three good worlds will make more money than two with commerce, and the stability hit should only be two for mismanagement of one extra world IIRC.

If you are running military bases on worlds, commerce becomes a lot less attractive anyway (you are multiplying less income), so if you are split between systems and need military bases/high commands everywhere, I think it's pretty likely that 3 worlds with mismanagement is much much better than two with commerce.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Colonies: Which would be more profitable?
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2022, 11:25:07 AM »

If I wanted to run wild with items, I probably would grind for alpha cores and the colony limits would be effectively broken.  That said, I try to put one industry item per world, and I have found enough to put one per colony.  I have Soil Nanites on one of my Terrans, found a pristine nanoforge (but I have no heavy industry on a non-habitable yet, my Orbital Works are on the Terrans for now), swiped the Spool from Evertide and stuck it on a frozen world with volatiles, and will soon swipe the Synchrotron from one of the core worlds.  I have found two dealmakers but no commerce is online yet.  Also have cataclysmic cores, but I do not need them if I do not try to use the hypershunt taps.  So far, only the Terrans are size 6.  The rest are size 3 for now.

In my current game, I have a mostly great system with a gate, but it is missing a "No Atmosphere" planet for fuel production, and I need to find another system with a planet, but the most convenient ones are 200% hazard (has high ores, but my high-gravity Terran has as much ores and more), and it is the only planet worth colonizing in the system (either only planet in system, or hazard of others are over 200 hazard), which might make it vulnerable to expeditions (might need to SP improve the base for more fleets).

My options for colonizing:
* Two systems next to mine (and within radius of cryosleeper):  One 200% hazard barren I need for fuel production, effectively only planet (the other planet is 225% hazard I don't need) and the other system has 100% arid, only planet in system.

* Another gate system near core with two 175% hazard "No Atmosphere" worlds.  Problem?  Middle of multiple pirate bases.  Got raid alerts before the spaceports were built.  (Rolled back game to previous save).

* Penelope's Star:  Gas giant with 150% hazard (for heavy industry) and 175% hazard barren (for fuel).  Very close to Magec, a gate system.  If I dump one of my higher hazard worlds in my main system, I can nab Ithica or the 125% desert, but its resources are low.

* Kumari Kandam:  Has everything I need and a better volatiles world than the one in my main system, but something bugs me about it.  Probably that I do not feel like I own the system, must share with others unless I sat bomb them off the map.  Call it irrational or whatever.  Pathers (who I am neutral with) have patrols that might intercept trading partners.

* Another system close to core, with 100% Terran with pre-gen pollution (ideal for Heavy Industry) and 150% hazard barren (good for fuel).  Only problem, nearest gate is almost ten light years away.  Also diametrically opposed with my main colonies.  While main colony system southwest of core, this secondary system is northeast of core.  It would be okay if it was close to a gate, but it is not.

There are other systems with good worlds and near gates, but too far from core.

Whatever option I choose, there is a possibility I may get six worlds, and since I am not impressed with basic Commerce (and I am not planning to bomb the core worlds to death), and I do not have dealmakers for all worlds, I am leaning toward dumping Commerce on some worlds for the extra colony.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2022, 11:28:08 AM by Megas »
Logged

Albreo

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • A! Oh nyo!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonies: Which would be more profitable?
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2022, 07:21:03 AM »

I usually don't spread my colony that wide. Absolutely a nightmare to take care of.

As for commerce I usually build it last after 7 pop. Unless I have a Holo-thing, others industries are more important. But to maximize the colony profit you're going to need at least a free port or commerce always. If you plan to make a huge profit then you can try putting both free port and commerce on your best colony but you're also going to need a Domain Com-relay to do that.
Logged

Salter

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Colonies: Which would be more profitable?
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2022, 07:58:11 AM »

I usually don't spread my colony that wide. Absolutely a nightmare to take care of.
Its not as bad if you got a really mobile fleet or have access to the ring systems from endgame stuff. They can usually make distant colony issues non-existent.

I generally just take a commission to supplement money issues early game (Tri-tach usually gives the best at high reputation) and proceed to map out star systems near cryo-ships and coronal shunts. You would be surprised what a little patience shows you to be the best world to colonize so you can optimize how much money you are actually making once you wean yourself off a faction commission income.

But the commerce thing should definitely be the last thing you are building. Stability matters alot, especially if you are not fast friends with pirates or the ludd's. Pirates can make life for the outer colonies especially miserable and the penalty from both a free port and commerce is a bit too much.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 08:12:05 AM by Salter »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Colonies: Which would be more profitable?
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2022, 09:07:20 AM »

The thing in my game is I have one near ideal system, good planets, near core, and has a gate; but it lacks a planet with no atmosphere (for synchrotron).  The no atmosphere planet in the nearest system has 200% hazard, and the only other planet in that system has even higher hazard at 225%.  In a single world system, I probably want High Command, but that is too expensive on a 200% hazard oven.  (I cannot use both Cyroarithmetic and Synchrotron without getting a pather cell on the planet, which I want to avoid.  If I do not care about cells, I would keep all the planets and more with alpha cores I have at hand.)

In the end, I decided to colonize a system far from my main colonies and far from a gate, but they were good, another Terran with pre-gen'ed Pollution, 100% hazard, ideal for Orbital Works with nanoforge (beats my frozen world with 175% for orbital works, but the world is still good for volatiles) and a 150% no atmosphere world.  Two worlds where I can put enough defenses to take care of themselves.  Being far from a gate is not ideal, as is being far from my other colonies, but they are close to core, and it is a decent outpost for stocking up provisions to explore far from my main colonies (in case any contacts send me on a wild goose chase.  Main colonies are in the west, my two last colonies are in the east.  Even with gates, warping from west to far east and back sucks a lot of fuel.  Having colonies in the east might help with fuel consumption (as in, I do not want to bring too many extra tankers).

In my current game, my current list of colonies are:
System #1 (main system)
* 125% Terran.  Primary colony.  Has all resources except Volatiles.
* 75% Terran.  Moon of the above.  Has farming and maximum organics.  Has orbital works without forge (do not want pollution).
* 200% Gas Giant.  Maximum volatiles and has plasma dynamo.  Held on to it in case I find fusion lamp.
* 175% Frozen world.  Moon of said gas giant.  Has volatiles.  Possible spot for heavy industry with forge.
System #2
* 100% Arid.  Filler world for money.
System #3 (secondary system)
* 100% Terran.  Had pollution before I found it.  Site of heavy industry with pristine nanoforge.
* 150% Barren.  For Fuel Production with synchrotron.

Currently eating -4 from mismanagement.  I have no Commerce or Free Ports active yet.

I will probably abandon the 200% gas giant after my frozen world grows up and outputs 6 volatiles.  If I really want maximum volatiles for fusion lamp hijinks, I can colonize one of other 150% gas giants in a distant gate system with an alpha admin later.  After all, meeting some demands at 9 or 10 is only possible with AI cores, which I am avoiding for now.

May abandon the 100% arid, depending whether or not I can eat a -2 mismanagement penalty.  I like the world and the system, but if push comes to shove, I can dump it.
Logged

Salter

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Colonies: Which would be more profitable?
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2022, 09:36:57 AM »

If I do not care about cells, I would keep all the planets and more with alpha cores I have at hand.)
Pathers in general are pushovers. They dont have any systems with ship production facilities and generally have crappy gear. At worst, they occasionally bomb your industries but that's just an occupational hazard when dealing with them in general. Its really pirates that are the big deal cause they can swarm your outer systems and impose a -8 stability if it gets really bad.

If anything really, the only reason you hunt them or their bases down is just for the bounty if there is one. There's no reason to go poking around a hornets nest otherwise, even if its a poorly armed one.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Colonies: Which would be more profitable?
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2022, 10:31:30 AM »

Fighting them is not the problem (or kind of is since I am not hostile to them).  It is the whack-a-mole aspect I want to avoid.  I do nothing, Pather cell will break something sooner or later.  It is better with 10 stability, but I do not call 75% evasion rate reliable enough.  Still better than early 0.9a when there was no defense aside from whack-a-mole.

I do not care that my fleet can run over Pathers without breaking a sweat.  I do not want to chase them.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Colonies: Which would be more profitable?
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2022, 11:50:57 AM »

Hmmm, if you have a primo colony and all its lacking is a no atmosphere rockball: do any of the core unclaimed systems have a no atmosphere world for fuel and refining? Duzakh or penalope's star?
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Colonies: Which would be more profitable?
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2022, 12:48:03 PM »

There were two core systems I considered, posted above:
* Penelope's Star had 150% gas giant and 175% barren moon, not to mention 125% Ithica.  Magec with gate is next door.

* Kumari Kandam had a better frozen world than my main system, plus a decent barren, and a gate.  I did not want to share the system with other factions, so I skipped it, even if it would have been more optimal.

In the end, I decided I did not want a system in the core worlds, so I picked another in the fringe.

The seed is MN-1, unmodded rc6 game.  (I have a habit of picking single-digit seed numbers.)

Duzakh was awful, only two high hazard death worlds.
Logged